You are 100 percent wrong. You can only claim you don't have an agenda if you can state unequivocally that you have no interest or intention of convincing anyone that Lechmere was the Ripper. Do you have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone Lechmere was the Ripper?

You seem to think that having an agenda is only a negative thing and can only be achieved by nefarious means. That's not true. You have an agenda. Period. It's to promote your suspect.

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

No, your opinion is irrelevant in this matter, because your opinion doesn't override the rules of the board which state that just because YOU think your suspect has value and ought to be discussed on every thread you can wedge him in on, everyone else ought to agree and follow along.

Quote:

[b]Does the same apply to any other suspect? Is it off limits to speak of Kosminski when somebody discusses mental incapacity on behalf of Hyams?

IT depends on context. If four people are happily having a discussion on Hyams on a Hyams thread and a Kosminiski-suspect pusher comes in and says Kosminski fits much better and one person and he starts arguing and derails the entire conversation for everyone else, then they've hijacked the thread, which is why the rule has been made. Because just because someone feels like their suspect can be wedged in to every given topic in any given circumstance doesn't mean they ought to be. Derailing other threads to push your suspect is hijacking. It's annoying to the other people who were having the conversation about Hyams and don't want to have another blasted pointless conversation about Kosminski and yet have to suffer through another interminable argument because of some zealot who has to stick his two cents in about his suspect every time he sees an opportunity. That's why there's a rule against it.

Quote:

[b]How does that differ from them ramming THEIR versions down MY throat?

I guess you can ask yourself, how many times does someone show up on a Lechmere thread trying to push an alternate suspect vs how many times you show up on an alternate thread to push Lechmere to answer that question?

__________________
Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

I hope that post was not directed at me? Because if it was I totally disagree, as I am entitled to do so, and the content of my post is relevant to what was being discussed in Sams post which I referred to.

In fact it was not theory based. I was stating a medical fact which cannot be ignored and what can be deduced from that fact.

Its a fact that some will choose to ignore because it goes against what they believe, but it is something that cannot be ignored.

No actually it is a perfect example of hijacking because: This thread is not about minutia of cuts or medical slicings. It was only mentioned as an example in a broader topic. Gareth was only giving a medical example as part of an illustration of an overall point of a broader topic that has nothing at all to do with who or how anything was sliced and diced. You seized on one small part of an argument to shove in and promote something that's near and dear to your pet theory: the ridiculous idea of rogue morgue attendants or students or whatever carving up the victims after the fact.

Hijacking a thread because of theory bias. Seeing one small part, where you could wedge in with your pet theory.

Thank you, for this fine illustrative opportunity.

__________________
Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

No actually it is a perfect example of hijacking because: This thread is not about minutia of cuts or medical slicings. It was only mentioned as an example in a broader topic. Gareth was only giving a medical example as part of an illustration of an overall point of a broader topic that has nothing at all to do with who or how anything was sliced and diced. You seized on one small part of an argument to shove in and promote something that's near and dear to your pet theory: the ridiculous idea of rogue morgue attendants or students or whatever carving up the victims after the fact.

Hijacking a thread because of theory bias. Seeing one small part, where you could wedge in with your pet theory.

Thank you, for this fine illustrative opportunity.

#

Anything that will go to prove, or disprove, any previously accepted theory is a valuable asset no matter where, or how, or by whom it is introduced.

Trevor, I was responding specifically to illustrative points made by Fisherman, in a discussion about how we approach the evidence. This discussion is about "methodology" in general, not about the murders themselves, nor about any specific suspect, or suspects as the case may be.

Ally: You are 100 percent wrong. You can only claim you don't have an agenda if you can state unequivocally that you have no interest or intention of convincing anyone that Lechmere was the Ripper. Do you have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone Lechmere was the Ripper?

You seem to think that having an agenda is only a negative thing and can only be achieved by nefarious means. That's not true. You have an agenda. Period. It's to promote your suspect.

I can only disagree. I know quite well that having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing, but conversely when we speak of people having agendas, we more often than not mean something less than flattering. No doubt, you will realize this. And that is why I say that I have a conviction - that Lechmere was probably the killer.

If I have an agenda, then that is pointing to how too little research has been put into the Lechmere case over the years, and to change that. If others agree that I have a good case, then so much the better.

I have spent my whole professional life as a journalist, fourteen of those years as a newspaper researcher. I am probably a lot more aware of how to evaluate sources than most people out here, and I have never once been criticized in my job for having misused sources.That does not mean that I cannot have lost my touch entirely and gone ballistic over the Lechmere issue, but I somehow doubt it. And - as I have repeatedly said - anybody who can prove the reverse is welcome to try and do so. I was a decent boxer in my youth, but I dislike fighting shadows - get the cards on the table and give me a fair chance to have my say.

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

No, your opinion is irrelevant in this matter, because your opinion doesn't override the rules of the board which state that just because YOU think your suspect has value and ought to be discussed on every thread you can wedge him in on, everyone else ought to agree and follow along.

But that´s factually wrong again. I never expected people out here to agree, far from it. And I don´t "wedge" Lechmere in on threads, I introduce him. The wording "wedge" is typical of how people who argue a case use dramatic, negative wordings so as to strengthen their case. Whether an opinion that is not in line with the rules of the board is irrelevant is another matter, Galileo was not in line with the rules of his day, but I don´t think what he had to say was irrelevant...

IT depends on context. If four people are happily having a discussion on Hyams on a Hyams thread and a Kosminiski-suspect pusher comes in and says Kosminski fits much better and one person and he starts arguing and derails the entire conversation for everyone else, then they've hijacked the thread, which is why the rule has been made. Because just because someone feels like their suspect can be wedged in to every given topic in any given circumstance doesn't mean they ought to be. Derailing other threads to push your suspect is hijacking. It's annoying to the other people who were having the conversation about Hyams and don't want to have another blasted pointless conversation about Kosminski and yet have to suffer through another interminable argument because of some zealot who has to stick his two cents in about his suspect every time he sees an opportunity. That's why there's a rule against it.

Of course, that is once again painting me in the worst light possible - and again, I would like to see any examples of me doing this before there can be a verdict of guilty on my behalf. It may be of interest in this context that I have consistently told posters who have brought Lechmere up on the torso/Ripper threads that I do not wish to discuss Lechmere on that score, but instead just look at how the Ripper and the torso man compare. That kind of swears against the assertions that I "wedge" Lechmere in wherever and whenever I can.

Is this going to be a trial without evidence? Or will somebody exemplify my supposedly vile behaviour?

I guess you can ask yourself, how many times does someone show up on a Lechmere thread trying to push an alternate suspect vs how many times you show up on an alternate thread to push Lechmere to answer that question?

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

Well I can't say whether your opinion is clouded on Lechmere but I can say your opinion is clouded on this argument because you are so busy having the argument you THINK we're having that you aren't actually arguing the points I am making. I have merely replied to your exact words on this exact thread. What you, YOURSELF have stated. You stated you put in Lechmere whereever you think he fits and of course, because you think he was Jack the Ripper, I imagine you think he fits in quite a lot of places don't you? That's against the rules of the board and that's what I said. You asked about Kosminski as an example. I gave an example of how the rules would be interpreted.

Quote:

And I don´t "wedge" Lechmere in on threads, I introduce him. The wording "wedge" is typical of how people who argue a case use dramatic, negative wordings so as to strengthen their case. Whether an opinion that is not in line with the rules of the board is irrelevant is another matter, Galileo was not in line with the rules of his day, but I don´t think what he had to say was irrelevant..

And your choice of the word "introduce" is typical of people who want to "introduce" me to their Lord and Savior. You see it as a positive thing. Others see it as intrusive and unwelcome. It's about perspective. Not everyone wants to be saved. And please just don't draw comparisons of your situation to Galileo, because that amount of ego, I just can't...no...

__________________
Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.